Search

Abdominal pain physiology may be better understood studying electrophysiology, histology, and symptom scores in patients with the symptoms of gastroparesis (Gp) treated with gastric electrical stimulation (GES). Ninety-five Gp patients' symptoms were recorded at baseline and during temporary and permanent GES. Gastric-emptying times and cutaneous, mucosal, and serosal electrogastrograms were obtained. S100-stained, full-thickness gastric biopsies were compared with autopsy controls. Sixty-eight patients reported severe pain at baseline. Severe pain patients' mean pain scores decreased with temporary GES from 3.62 to 1.29 (P < 0.001) and nonsevere pain from 1.26 to 0.67 (P = 0.01). With permanent GES, severe mean pain scores fell to 2.30 (P < 0.001); nonsevere pain changed to 1.60 (P = 0.221). Mean follow-up was 275 days. Mean cutaneous, mucosal, and serosal frequencies and frequency-to-amplitude ratios were markedly higher than literature controls. For patients with Gp overall and subdivided by etiology and severity of pain, S-100 neuronal fibers were significantly reduced in both muscularis propria layers. GES improved severe pain associated with symptoms of Gp. This severe pain is associated with abnormal electrogastrographic activity and loss of S100 neuronal fibers in the stomach's inner and outer muscularis propria and, therefore, could be the result of gastric neuropathy.

Background/Aims Gastroparesis-like syndrome (GLS) is defined as gastroparesis-like symptoms with normal gastric scintigraphy. While the efficacy of gastric electrical stimulation (GES) in gastroparesis is well known, the utility of GES in GLS is largely unknown. Our aim was to clarify the role of GES in GLS. We implanted consecutive patients with symptoms of gastroparesis with temporary gastric electrical stimulation and observed changes in gastric scintigraphy and total symptom score. Methods Five hundred and fifty-one patients suffering from symptoms of gastroparesis (nausea, vomiting, bloating/distension, anorexia/ early satiety, and abdominal pain) with negative endoscopy underwent gastric scintigraphy with analysis of 1) solid radionuclide gastric emptying at 1, 2, and 4 hours (% remaining); 2) area under the gastric emptying curve (AUC) at 1, 2, and 4 hours; and 3) total gastric emptying test (GET) (the sum of 1, 2, and 4 hour values). Patients were stratified into: delayed gastric emptying, normal gastric emptying, and rapid gastric emptying (Appendix). Of the 551 patients in the larger cohort, 379 had implantation of temporary gastric electrical stimulation (tGES). Gastrointestinal symptoms and gastric emptying were com - pared pre and post tGES implantation. Results After tGES, 2 hour gastric retention decreased (P < 0.01) for the delayed patients, and increased (P< 0.001) for normal and rapid patients. These changes were accompanied by improvements (P< 0.001) in vomiting, nausea, and total symptom scores in all 3 subgroups. Conclusions Gastric electrical stimulation may be an effective therapy for treating the symptoms of gastroparesis with normal gastric emptying. Further exploration of endoscopic electrical stimulation as a treatment for gastroparesis-like symptoms with non-delayed gastric emptying is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Factors underlying gastroparesis are not well defined, nor is the mechanism of action of gastric electrical stimulation (GES). We hypothesized that GES acts via several mechanisms related to underlying disordered pathophysiology. Methods: We studied 43 consecutive eligible patients with gastroparetic symptoms, previously evaluated by two methods in each of five core areas: inflammatory, autonomic, enteric, electrophysiologic, and hormonal; and also categorized by GI symptoms, metabolic status, illness quantification, and gastric physiology. We then studied 41 patients who underwent temporary GES for 5‐7 days. Thirty‐six of those patients were implanted and 30 were followed up at 6 months after permanent GES. Results: In previous but separately reported work, patients had similar GI symptoms regardless of baseline gastric emptying or diabetic/idiopathic status and all patients demonstrated abnormalities in each of the five areas studied. After GES, patients showed early and late effects of electrical stimulation with changes noted in multiple areas, categorized by improvement status. Conclusion: Patients with symptoms of gastroparesis have multiple abnormalities, including systemic inflammation and disordered hormonal status. GES affects many of these abnormalities. We conclude electrical stimulation improves symptoms and physiology with (a) an early and sustained anti‐emetic effect; (b) an early and durable gastric prokinetic effect in delayed emptying patients; (c) an early anti‐arrhythmic effect that continues over time; (d) a late autonomic effect; (e) a late hormonal effect; (f) an early anti‐inflammatory effect that persists; and (g) an early and sustained improvement in health‐related quality of life. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov under study # NCT03178370 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03178370). A consensus does not exist on the pathophysiologic factors underlying gastroparetic symptoms. Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) has early and late effects on disordered physiology in gastroparetic symptom patients. Gastric electrical stimulation might better be classified as neuromodulation due to its several possible mechanisms of action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]